> The likelihood that a particular output is positively identified depends heavily on its age relative to our regular protocol upgrades. That's mentioned expli

> The likelihood that a particular output is positively identified depends heavily on its age relative to our regular protocol upgrades. That's mentioned explicitly in the article. With explicit dates of certain protocol changes that have improved things. > And it's not like we aren't actively working on ways to improve anonymity. In other words, there are threats now. Which is what the article says. > I always appreciate research into ways to improve Monero, but I don't think this article does the research justice. I haven't seen the original research, so I cannot tell if the article does it justice. But I can say that what you have said here doesn't call the article into question. You have just restated the things it says. (For whatever it's worth, I do own some Monero and I would like it to be successful. Part of that is accepting valid, constructive criticism.)